About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
that the first, at this point $5 million in inheritance is tax free. but doma says same-sex marriage is not recognize at the federal law. she didn't get that federal tax break. that's what doma is all about, as i read what senator paul is saying, he says he would agree with the plaintiff in this case that the federal government should grant her the rights that she has under the state in which she was married. >> interesting. i am aware that in new york today there's going to be a march over doma. there are a lot of strong opinions on either side. what's the next step other than the courts? >> well, it is the courts. this is going to come up before the court this week, monday, tuesday and wednesday they're going to hear proposition 8, the whole question of whether or not same-sex marriage can be banned as it was in california, then this issue of what the federal role should be. this is tough role for conservatives because they've held db the federal doma law signed by president bill clinton, puts the government right if the middle of same-sex marriage saying it will not recognize it e
and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me what attorney general holder is saying by implication is that the
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)